from the wtf? dept

I recognize that there are some people out there who really just don't like social networking or Twitter or Facebook, but I'm often amazed at how this sometimes leads people to blame other societal woes on those kinds of things. That apparently happened with a judge in a child porn case. The actual case itself sounds somewhat horrifying. A 56-year old woman, Laura Culver, was sentenced to 8 years in prison for collaborating with another person, Edgardo Sensi, to film an 8-year-old girl engaging in sexually explicit content. As I said: horrifying. Assuming all that is true, I'm happy to see them get locked up for a long, long time (in fact, 8 years seems too short).

However, that sentencing has now been sent back to the lower court, because the judge who issued the sentence apparently spent a significant amount of time at the sentencing blaming Facebook for child pornography and attacking Mark Zuckerberg. While the full transcript is sealed (due to the fact that the case involves a minor), the ruling to redo the sentencing includes some details:

In justifying its decision to impose a sentence of eight years instead of six, the district court referenced “Facebook, and things like it, and society has changed.” ... The court speculated that the proliferation of Facebook would facilitate an increase in child pornography cases. The court said it hoped Mark Zuckerberg (who founded Facebook) was “enjoying all his money because . . . he’s going to hurt a lot of people . . . .”

Just one problem: the case had nothing to do with Facebook. In fact, it had nothing to do with the internet. And yet the judge claimed that he upped her sentence because of Facebook:

Culver is correct that the court’s lengthy discussion of Facebook had no clear connection to the facts of her case. It is plain error for a district court to rely upon its own unsupported theory of deterrence at sentencing, especially where, as here, that theory has little
application to the actual facts of the case itself.... This error undoubtedly affected Culver’s substantial rights; the court stated that it would have granted a sentence of six years if not for its concerns about Facebook and general deterrence. See Sentencing Hr’g Tr. at 42 (“[W]hat we’re looking at is general deterrence, and the general deterrence is very important, and frankly, that’s why I went to eight [years] instead of six.”).

While the government defended the judge's rant, the appeals court points out that given the lack of any connection to the internet at all in this case, it clearly didn't make any sense:

The government argues that the district court was merely concerned about the extent to which various new technologies may facilitate child pornography, rather than Facebook specifically. In that sense, Facebook was a
reference to the internet, using synecdoche. But the government does not explain (because it cannot) the role of new technology in this case. Culver did not use the internet to commit her crime, and it should not have played a predominant role in her sentencing.

The court further notes that a sentence of 8 years may be entirely appropriate. In fact, it points out that this is below the minimum sentencing guidelines, though it sounds like the court gave Culver a "lower" sentence for cooperating against Sensi, but still notes that the "particularly abhorrent" nature of her crime may still mean that the eventual sentence (or even more) is appropriate, but "that discretion should be exercised without the influence of procedural error."

Indeed. Oh, and in case you're wondering, the judge in question, Warren Eginton, appears to be nearing 90 years old, which may explains some of his misplaced hatred for things like Facebook.

from the wait,-you-used-to-have-to-wind-up-radios? dept

I love luddites. They're just so damned consistent. I haven't completely worked out the details yet, but I'm positive there is a math equation out there that would accurately predict after what year a person thinks everything new sucks. Maybe it'd look something like: (year of current date) - (age of person) / (IQ) = (year after which everything sucks). Okay, that's clearly far from perfect (and I hear Douglas Adams may have done it better), but I would expect something along those lines could predict people like a DHS boss that doesn't use anything online ever. Or Andrew Keen and Sherry Turkle, who team up to claim that social media is making us less private, but more lonely, which seems to work at cross conclusions but the math formula is the math formula so screw social media.

Look how lonely all these people are together!
Image source: CC BY-SA 2.0

Those examples aside, I have to admit this is a new one for me. Apparently there once were radios that you had to wind up to use and Trevor Baylis, the guy that invented them, says Google is making younger generations brain dead.

"Children have got to be taught hands-on, and not to become mobile phone or computer dependent. They are dependent on Google searches. A lot of kids will become fairly brain-dead if they become so dependent on the internet, because they will not be able to do things in the old-fashioned way."

Let's see if I can break down the pure wrongness of this kind of thinking with a couple of fun little analogies.

Children have to be taught how to tend to their horses and not become dependent on automobiles or public transportation, otherwise they may not be able to ride horses any longer.

Children have to be taught how to use an abacus and not become dependent on calculators, otherwise they not be able to use abacuses in their adult daily lives.

Children have to be taught how to unhook a chastity belt, otherwise they may not be able to have sex once they are married and somehow chasisty belts come back into circulation because....yeah, because.

Get the point? Once the old way is no longer the way, we don't have to teach it any longer. I use Google searches every day, both for work (part numbers for technology parts) and for personal use (explicit search terms for naughty human parts). That's where that stuff exists, on the internet. In fact, learning how to properly use a search engine to get the most out of its results is probably one of the most worthwhile things you can teach a child today. There is nothing wrong with learning the old way of doing things, specifically if that old way builds a foundation for understanding the new way, but blaming Google for making children brain dead is just silly.

from the that-would-be-a-problem dept

We've talked in the past about the problematic efforts to push for new cybersecurity regulations, especially when little to nothing has been done to show the actual problem. There has been quite a turf war over who would "own" cybersecurity within the federal government, with some wanting to give it to the Defense Department, where the NSA would control it (along with all your info), and others wanting to give it to the Department of Homeland Security. While neither option is ideal, DHS is clearly the lesser of two evils should it come to pass. It makes much more sense for this issue to be in the hands of a civilian organization rather than a military one -- especially a military one with a horrible track record when it comes to privacy. That said, it's tough to be enthusiastic about DHS either, given the various problems and abuses we've seen in that Department as well. Making matters even worse, it appears that the DHS boss, Janet Napolitano, who would effectively be in charge of cybersecurity, doesn't know much (if anything) about the internet, and seems rather proud of that fact, referring to herself as a Luddite:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who is a key player in national cybersecurity efforts, said on Friday she doesn't use e-mail.

"Don't laugh, but I just don't use e-mail at all," she said during a discussion at a Cybersecurity Summit hosted by National Journal and Government Executive. She didn't explain what communications tools she does use.

President Obama, who appointed Napolitano, broke precedent by carrying his own BlackBerry device. But in response to a question about her personal cybersecurity practices, Napolitano said she avoids many online services. "I don't have any of my own accounts. Some would call me a Luddite," she said.

I don't think anyone should be laughing, but perhaps they should be very, very worried. Or, perhaps they should be asking why she's in that job when she doesn't seem to have the necessary experience. If it does come to pass that DHS gets control over new cybersecurity efforts, this seems like a good reason to find someone else who actually has some grasp on what it is that they're regulating.

from the or-'zuck-it-up'-if-you-prefer dept

To promote his new pop-Luddite book Digital Vertigo—named, I assume, for the slight feeling of dizziness that signals the onset of old age—Andrew Keen has written an opinion column for CNN about the disastrous consequences of social media for the human condition. Having spent a day to process his words, I'm left with one inescapable conclusion: Keen needs to take a broader view of history. I call this "inescapable" because it holds true whether or not you agree with him. If you reject his premise that them kids aint right, then you probably think he needs to look at all the many technological and societal revolutions throughout the millennia and the shortsighted people who have railed against them, only to be proven wrong. But what if you agree with that premise, and like Keen, you fear that Facebook will "Zuck up" the species, or at least take it sweetly in the hayloft then sell the videos to Zynga?

Then I think you would still have to conclude that he lacks perspective, because he simply doesn't go far enough. His main concern, which he backs up with the quacking noises words of Techdirt's good friend Sherry Turkle, is that social media is causing people to build their identities based on what people think of them rather than magically conjuring up an identity from within—and that this is a tragedy for humanity:

But this shift to a Facebook world of incessant "friending," Professor Turkle correctly warns us, is a "seductive fantasy" which is weakening us both as individuals and as a society. The problem, she explains, is that a "capacity for solitude is what nurtures great relationships." But in today's always-on social media world, our solitude has been replaced by incessant online updates, which both weaken our sense of self and our ability to create genuine friendships.

...

What it means, of course, is that we are creating a world in which our sense of identity, of who we actually are, is defined by what others think of us. Social media's ubiquity means that we are losing that most precious of human things -- our sense of self . Our devices are always on; our "Timeline" (Facebook's product which greedily attempts to capture our entire life narrative) is there for everyone to see; we are living in public on a radically transparent global network that, by 2020, will be fed by 50 billion intelligent devices carried by the majority of people on the planet.

This is disappointingly short-sighted. How could Keen reach this conclusion without noticing that the telephone also created more intercommunication and immediacy within communities, and thus should be rejected as well? Or that earlier still, international postage did us a great disservice by inundating our identities with annoying perspectives from around the world? If I am to follow someone backwards into this brave old world of isolation, I want a true leader who knows how to go big or go home (and "home" should be like, a cave, or something). In fact, I can't think of a single instant in the history of human civilization where members of a community have not largely defined their identity and value based on the standards and demands of that community. I'm beginning to suspect that farming may be to blame—or maybe cave painting? Frankly I'm not sure why we spend so much time coming up with words to express our thoughts and get feedback from others, violating the sanctity of our identities by tempering them with a variety of viewpoints, when all we really need are hunting commands. So why isn't Keen championing that cause?

Or maybe it's not history Keen is lacking—maybe it's philosophy. After all, there's a simple solution to his problem: solipsism. Wasn't it Descartes' first principle that the self is the only thing one can be sure exists? And someone who hates progress so much should never need more than one principle. If we just accept that nobody else is real, then it won't bother us when they tweet photos of their breakfast anymore. Ah, but I guess then we wouldn't get the other benefits Keen mentions:

But remember, the less we publicly announce about ourselves, the more mysterious and thus the more interesting our private selves become.

Wait, now I'm confused. I thought the whole idea was to be less narcissistic, and not base our identities on the opinions of others. That sure sounds like a high-school-level attempt to cultivate a public identity to me, but since I've now decided that neither Keen nor anyone reading this actually exists, I'll let it pass and focus on building my self-esteem by beating myself at Words With Friends, which is way more fun when you renounce your friends. Still, I expect more from figments of my imagination, and I hope Keen will realize that he's only scratched the surface of the vile threat to our humanity that "community" represents.